Recently, an interest in risk calculation methods has been increasing in Korea due to the establishment of classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101), which is based on the international standard of classification of areas - explosive gas atmospheres (IEC 60079-10-1). However, experiments to check for leaks of combustible or toxic gases are very difficult. These experiments can lead to fire, explosion, and toxic poisoning. Therefore, even if someone tries to provide a laboratory for this experiment, it is difficult to install a gas leakage equipment. In this study we find out differences among actual experiments, CFD by using FLACS and calculation based on classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101) by comparing to each other. We develpoed KGS HAC (hazardous area classification) program which based on KGS GC101 for convenience and popularization. As a result, actual gas leak, CFD and KGS HAC are showing slightly different results. The results of dispersion of 1.8 to 2.7 m were shown in the actual experiment, and the CFD and KGS HAC showed a linear increase of about 0.4 to 1 m depending on the increase in a flow rate. In the actual experiment, the application of 3/8” tubes and orifice to take into account the momentum drop resulted in an increase in the hazardous distance of about 1.95 m. Comparing three methods was able to identify similarities between real and CFD, and also similarities and limitations of CFD and KGS HAC. We hope these results will provide a good basis for future experiments and risk calculations.